A practical issue.
Long time readers of this blog know that I am critical of Dr. William Pierce for (among other things, many things in fact) moving from the DC area to the mountains of West Virginia. I am equally critical of other pro-White leaders who have their “national offices” out in the middle of nowhere. We need to consider this issue.
I am not stupid and naïve, so I do understand some of the advantages of an out-of-the-way, middle-of-nowhere location. The first is increased physical security, a concern of more import today than it was even in Pierce’s day. This is in fact, really, the only major legitimate issue. Second, somewhat, but not totally, tied to the first, is the improved demographics, and third is the issue of being “cheaper to live.”
We’ll get back to these arguments, but let’s look at the other side of the ledger – the profound negatives, the costs, of this approach. There are two major issues that I will deal with here (other issues may exist, but let’s focus on the major ones). First, it is not optimal, not “healthy” from the “political” standpoint, for a leader of an alleged national and international organization or movement to be so isolated from the main political, social, etc. currents of society. The riposte to that would be that the presence of the Internet (that in Pierce’s specific case did not exist when he made his move), and instantaneous global communication, makes proximity to the main currents of national (and international) realities unnecessary. However, even if we are to assume that Internet access would never be abrogated for political reasons, or in a national emergency (never mind a local “outage” – is the Grand Fuhrer then cut off?), in the last analysis, digital cannot fully substitute for analog. In the last analysis, the race crisis takes place in the real world, the physical world, and it cannot be fully engaged with, only and always, with digital bits. A further riposte against my analysis would be that America is a big place, and the world is bigger, and just because someone is located “more urban” does not mean they have physical proximity to the other side of the country or the other side of the world. That’s true, but – besides my admonition of having multiple headquarters, see below – the point here is to optimize the situation in a realistic fashion, not expect a person to be in all places at once. The question is whether a leader of an alleged “world historical mission” should be “close to the action” to the extent possible or out somewhere where the only “action” is cow tipping and gopher hunting.
The second major issue is one of public perception. Like it or not, it is difficult to take seriously pretentions of national and international status when your “national office” is in the mountains of West Virginia or some other out-of-the-way place. Dismissing this as “superficial” doesn’t alter the reality one bit. Like it or not, politics is in large part perception – after all, didn’t the “National Alliance membership handbook” tell members always to be “well groomed” etc. when interacting with the public? Aren’t there standards of behavior and appearance that go beyond the need to stay within the law? Aren’t there concerns with public image and public perception? If such concerns are valid, then having “PO Box 100, Woodchuck Way, Grasslands Trailer Park, Arkansas” as your “national office” mailing address is not going to inspire confidence among your target audience. Call that “elitist” or whatever, but it is still reality.
What about the positives listed above? Security is a concern, but I note that Amren and Counter-Currents have both survived despite being “closer to the action” and the “multiple headquarters” solution (see below), if possible, would at least partially alleviate this concern. And, anyway, in the long run, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Consider it from the public perception standpoint – an organization that has not at least minimally dealt with the problem of security other than being “snug in their hobbit hole in the forest” is not going to inspire confidence that they can “save the White race.” If you cannot defend yourself, then how will you defend the race? Hiding from demographic change doesn’t inspire confidence either. Economic concerns are somewhat overblown, considering the millions of dollars that flow into “movement” pockets. If your organization cannot compete with VDARE for funding, then, again, from a public perception standpoint, what good is it?
The optimal solution to this conundrum is to have multiple headquarters, at least two. At least one of these can be the out-of-the-way “hobbit hole” location that maximizes the alleged advantages – particularly physical security – mentioned near the beginning of this essay. The other headquarters – that needs to be the group’s “official headquarters” as well as the group’s mailing address – needs to be close to a major urban area, within access of an airport that is either international or has connecting flights to international airports (preferably the former), etc. This second headquarters could even be, at first, just a PO Box and some office space, but with a plan for growth. The “hobbit hole” headquarters can be the secure fall back – or, if the “leader” is so inclined, even the primary residence, but there has to be a physical location “close to the action” that the “leader” often visits. The optimal thing in my opinion would be for the primary residence to be “close to the action” with the “hobbit hole” being the alternate secure “back up” – but if we are dealing with a rural-loving persona like Pierce allowances can be made otherwise. If more satellite headquarters can be set up, even better. The security issue at the more “close to the action” location would need to be dealt with but an organization that wants to “save the White race” had better come up with viable solutions.
The bottom line is that, ultimately, only having a “hobbit hole” headquarters out in the middle of nowhere is not going to get the job done. Maybe that situation must obtain at the beginning of a group’s existence, but some of these groups have been around for decades. The National Alliance has been in existence for ~ 50 years. In the beginning some of these groups actually were “close to the action.” At some point, excuses need to end. At some point, the organization needs to demonstrate that it is capable of effectively engaging with the broader society that it wishes to change.